Public option or national plan?
It is well-known that the biggest opposition to Democratic efforts to overhaul our nation’s health care system has came from those who oppose the so-called public option. This is the option where the government basically gets into the business of health care insurance and offers their own plan in competition with the plans offered by private insurers. Even moderate Senate Democrats have said they will refuse to vote for passage of any legislation that contains such a proposal, at least as it has been negotiated thus far.
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempts to wrangle a compromise that will be acceptable enough to gain the needed 60 votes, he has assembled a group of Democrats to negotiate on the issue. The group consists of five moderate and five liberal Democrats and they are holding closed-door meetings in an attempt to work out a compromise. Senators in the talks are Charles Schumer, Russ Feingold, Sherrod Brown, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Ben Nelson, and Mark Pryor. Reports are saying the talks are centered around creating a national health care plan that is tailored after the plan that all federal employees have.
As these talks go forward, Harry Reid wants results. He has set a deadline of today and depending on who you listen to, that is either possible or not even close. It’s pretty clear that there is a lot of ground to be made up in this compromise and it is not so clear if these ten Senators will be able to cover it in time.
Still a work in progress, the compromise would call for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would negotiate a plan to put on the health insurance exchange. A private insurer, such as Blue Cross or Kaiser Permanente would administer the plan. According to CNN, the goal is to provide a low-profit or non-profit insurance plan to compete with the plans offered by private insurers.
Since I have readers of both the liberal and conservative persuasion and even a few moderates, let me ask a question. If you were negotiating with these Senators, would such a plan as they are proposing be an acceptable compromise to you?
Basically, I would have to oppose such a plan, because such a non-profit system with low rates would drive many private insurance companies from the field, leaving many who decided to stay with their old companies without insurance and eventually forcing them into the non-profit system that would probably offer fewer benefits. There are many more reasons I could go into , but these are my biggest concerns.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..Tomatoes Today and Bombs Tomorrow?
Have the low rates afforded to our other government insurance plans driven private insurers out of business? A real question, as I don’t know. The Big 10 insurance companies have a large majority of insuance plans, and I don’t think a lower negotiated rate for more customers will put them out of business. Might lower their bonuses a bit. Will a few smaller go under? Not sure, as they don’t have to compete for these contracts and continue to charge standard rates. But there might be a flaw in that thinking.
I look at this with some optimism as I do think a bit of competition is in order. When was the last time anybody negotiated insurance plans? I have done it twice in a year and a half, and I think it is telling how close their rates are, no matter the size or rating of a company.
I also am curious as to what people think about the idea floated about allowing a buy-in to Medicare at 55. I am interested in that one. People who are still working and contributing to the Medicare system will also be paying into it for less expensive coverage. And this new crop will be generally healthier than the 65+ which means less payouts. Seems like a decent way to prop up Medicare and offer cheaper rates.
I would vote no. I am with Ron on this one. I think we should open up insurance so it can be sold across state lines. That will insure a better outcome. Also, I am for taking this out of the government’s hands (which it shouldn’t be in to start with) and put it in the hands of the states and the people. If Utah can fix a great many of their healthcare problems without the help of government, why can’t the other 49 states do so as well.
Dominique´s last blog ..Sweden pushing forward 2 DIVIDE JERUSALEM.
I am with Ron and Dominique, not surprisingly. I don’t want the government involved in the insurance industry at all but any reform should start with TORT reform and allowing insurace to be sold over state lines.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..President Obama tells John Conyers that he is demeaning him
I do not think the government needs to be involved in the insurance industry either, but it appears that is what may happen. The Democrats in the Senate have reached an agreement on the issue.
They are saying they are getting close to pushing the legislation through the Senate, after removing a full-blown public option in favor of the option I wrote about in the above article.
Insurance plans offered nationally, tort reform, and some sort of pool to protect people who cannot get coverage are options I would like to see put in place first. Having a private insurer manage a public option sounds better than having the federal government’s hand in it, but the purse strings will still be controlled by Washington, DC.
No thanks.
Matt Keegan´s last blog ..How To Avoid Getting Ripped Off This Christmas